Is use of the Hogan consistent with the ADA?
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 895
Is use of the Hogan consistent with the ADA?
The OMB report is far less certain of the "success" of such tests than you seem to be. But even if it were true, it wouldn't matter under the ADA if "reasonable accommodation" we're possible.
From the EEOC website:
It would seem that the onus would be in the employer to prove that the Hogan was sufficiently effective that it was a business necessity to employ it and that there was no reasonable accommodation they could make to offset whatever Hogan related issue they were rejecting applicants for. I don't think they could find a single statistician willing to say it was anything other than a crude and not terribly effective screen, especially when applied to an applicant group already possessing an FAA class one physical, an ATP, and a couple thousand hours of 121 time.
You have to understand, the law was rewritten precisely to overcome the issues that allowed UAL to prevail in UAL vs Sutton.
From the EEOC website:
It would seem that the onus would be in the employer to prove that the Hogan was sufficiently effective that it was a business necessity to employ it and that there was no reasonable accommodation they could make to offset whatever Hogan related issue they were rejecting applicants for. I don't think they could find a single statistician willing to say it was anything other than a crude and not terribly effective screen, especially when applied to an applicant group already possessing an FAA class one physical, an ATP, and a couple thousand hours of 121 time.
You have to understand, the law was rewritten precisely to overcome the issues that allowed UAL to prevail in UAL vs Sutton.
Do you think United should have been forced to hire the Horizon employee who took the Q400 for a joyride if he failed the Hogan?
And I’m beginning to suspect you’ve got an unspoken agenda here. It's odd you keep pushing the issue given your admission you haven’t taken these tests.
#22
Banning personality testing (and possibly other HR practices?) would would likely take a deliberate act of legislation, I doubt the courts could spin the ADA that far (although a few might have a go at it).
That would open up the much broader issue of what techniques are fair and equitable in the screening of potential employees? Should interviews be restricted to avoid any nuanced influence due to personality factors? Ie you can't favor a polished, charming applicant over a toad? What then? All technically qualified applicant's names go in a hat and do a random draw for the winner?
#23
And I’m beginning to suspect you’ve got an unspoken agenda here. It's odd you keep pushing the issue given your admission you haven’t taken these tests.
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 895
Is use of the Hogan consistent with the ADA?
This whole exercise is sort of ridiculous since you haven’t experienced the tests. It sounds like you’re making excuses for failing them in advance.
And, no, I’m not demonstrating paranoid ideation. Challenging your perceived agenda isn’t paranoia.
Last edited by GuardPolice; 08-13-2018 at 06:09 PM.
#25
Banning personality testing (and possibly other HR practices?) would would likely take a deliberate act of legislation, I doubt the courts could spin the ADA that far (although a few might have a go at it).
That would open up the much broader issue of what techniques are fair and equitable in the screening of potential employees? Should interviews be restricted to avoid any nuanced influence due to personality factors? Ie you can't favor a polished, charming applicant over a toad? What then? All technically qualified applicant's names go in a hat and do a random draw for the winner?
I don't think this is that big a jump.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2...es-in-lawsuit/
Last edited by Excargodog; 08-13-2018 at 06:42 PM.
#27
#30
Why are you so anxious to defend a test that has little if any power to distinguish between people who will be successful in the job and those who won't?
The issue comes down to something in group statistics called Bayes Theorem. If you were using personality testing on an unscreened group - just guys off the street - personality testing like MMPI Or the Hogan would have reasonable statistical power to pick out the 1% who are schizophrenic and the 3 or 4% who are chronically depressed. The predictive value of a positive assessment or negative assessment might be pretty decent. But that isn't what you are doing. When you change the population being screened to a group that - for instance, has safely accumulated 5000 flying hours including 1500-2000 of 121 time, has passed a half dozen physicals (even FAA physicals), has a clean police record, passed the KCM check, and has a few recommendations from people with similar qualifications who know him/her, you've ALREADY eliminated the vast majority of the problem children, so even if you apply the exact same criteria, the value of the test goes way down.
Your percentage of false positives doesn't change, but there are barely any true positives to be found. Basically if you use the results to cull half the applicants, the bottom half that you are eliminating do not differ in any meaningful way from the 'top' half you are keeping.
I mean, don't take my word for it. Look up Bayes Theorem or ask some statistician. By the time you apply a screening test to a population that has already been heavily screened by other criteria you might as well just flip a coin and save the money.
https://betterexplained.com/articles...bayes-theorem/
Last edited by Excargodog; 08-13-2018 at 08:54 PM. Reason: Provide brief article explaining Bayes Theorem and screening tests
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post